Chess game #2 between Eve and David L : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

[Category: Misc]

Eve and I recently finished our second chess game. (Our first game was presented here.)

Here is the score of our second game, first in Descriptive Notation, then in Algebraic.

White: Eve
Black: David L
Played by electronic correspondence, May-June 2000

1. P-Q4 N-KB3
2. B-B4 P-B4
3. P-K3 PxP
4. PxP Q-N3
5. N-QB3 P-K3
6. B-Q3 P-QR3
7. KN-K2 P-Q4
8. Castles B-Q2
9. Q-Q2 N-B3
10. B-K3 N-QN5
11. N-B1 NxB
12. NxN R-B1
13. P-QR3 B-K2
14. QR-N1 B-N4
15. KR-K1 BxN
16. QxB Q-B2
17. P-B3 Q-QB5
18. QxQ RxQ
19. R-K2 BxP
20. PxB RxN
21. RxP Castles
22. B-B1 R-B5
23. B-N2 P-R3
24. P-B3 R-R1
25. K-B2 K-B1
26. K-K3 K-K1
27. K-Q3 R(1)-B1
28. P-N4 N-Q2
29. P-B4 N-B3
30. P-B5 N-K5
31. R-K1 P-K4
32. R-N4 RxR
33. RPxR P-B3
34. R-K2 K-B2
35. P-B4 N-Q3
36. BPxP P-K5 ch
37. K-K3 R-B5
38. K-B4 K-K2
39. P-R4 RxNP
40. B-R3 RxP
41. BxN ch KxB
42. R-QR2 P-K6 ch
43. KxP RxNP
44. RxP ch KxP
45. R-R5 ch K-Q3
46. R-R6 ch K-K2
47. R-K6 ch K-Q2
48. R-K4 RxR ch
49. KxR K-Q3
White Resigns

Same game, in Algebraic Notation:

1. d4 Nf6
2. Bf4 c5
3. e3 cxd
4. exd Qb6
5. Nc3 e6
6. Bd3 a6
7. Nge2 d5
8. O-O Bd7
9. Qd2 Nc6
10. Be3 Nb4
11. Nc1 Nxd3
12. Nxd3 Rc8
13. a3 Be7
14. Rab1 Bb5
15. Rfe1 Bxd3
16. Qxd3 Qc7
17. f3 Qc4
18. Qxc4 Rxc4
19. Re2 Bxa3
20. bxa3 Rxc3
21. Rxb7 O-O
22. Bc1 Rc4
23. Bb2 h6
24. c3 Ra8
25. Kf2 Kf8
26. Ke3 Ke8
27. Kd3 Rac8
28. g4 Nd7
29. f4 Nf6
30. f5 Ne4
31. Re1 e5
32. Rb4 Rxb4
33. axb4 f6
34. Re2 Kf7
35. c4 Nd6
36. cxd e4+
37. Ke3 Rc4
38. Kf4 Ke7
39. h4 Rxb4
40. Ba3 Rxd4
41. Bxd6+ Kxd6
42. Ra2 e3+
43. Kxe3 Rxg4
44. Rxa6+ Kxd5
45. Ra5+ Kd6
46. Ra6+ Ke7
47. Re6+ Kd7
48. Re4 RxR ch
49. Kxe4 K-Q3

Questions and comments welcome. (I'll be posting some of my thoughts in a few days.)

-- David L (, July 02, 2000


And you are telling us this because.......?

-- Dan Newsome (, July 02, 2000.

How's your navel lint coming along?

-- equaly relevant (, July 02, 2000.

Granted, this subject does not have universal appeal, but how many subjects can either of you think of that do? Or do you feel that if something doesn't interest you, it shouldn't be posted?

-- David L (, July 02, 2000.

I can think of one subject that has universal appeal.How about sex?or food?Or even,god help us,Relgion.I'm sure there are chess sites on this web.Why don't you post this ponderous,plodding,glacial,downright boring to tears subject on one them?

-- Dan Newsome (, July 02, 2000.

Dicker Hund....

-- Koenig (King@Queen.Pawn), July 02, 2000.

David, Eve, and Dandelion,

I hope you won't be dissuaded by someone with no interest in your chess matches who cannot resist opening your threads and posting criticisms anyway. I, for one, have enjoyed reading the commentary of your games, and am learning from it. And, it sure as shit is better reading than yet another cpr, andy ray, or al-d rant.

-- (I'm a@little.teapot), July 02, 2000.

teapot, thanks so much for the feedback.

And you too, Dan, though you can't quite admit to having found my allegedly pointless post to be absolutely compelling. It's OK, I am well aware how hard it is to acknowledge one's chess addiction.

-- David L (, July 02, 2000.

Hi Dave,

Thanks for posting this. You know, I found this game particularly exciting. And, right up to nearly the end, I couldn't readily see where I lost it -- although I say this without having analyzed the game yet.

Just a bit on what were for me two critical junctures: I had completely overlooked your 31.... P-K4. And it took me a very long time to find what I thought to be the only move that held things together for me: 32. R-N4.

Also, I played 29. P-B4 to try for complications (in fact, I thought it was practically forced -- you know -- the only way), as I saw your knight coming to my queenside to create difficulties, and I could no longer afford to keep the position closed and allow this to happen.


Yes -- thank you for your support.

-- eve (, July 03, 2000.

Dan, in case you're new to this forum, here is a brief description of its purpose, which is essentially to encourage free flowing discussion of just about anything.

-- David L (, July 03, 2000.

Dave, thanks for helping Dan. Dan, welcome to the forum (I assume you're new).

-- eve (, July 03, 2000.

The name says it all.Are we to take seriously someone namd bumpkin ?I think not.

-- Dan Newsome (, July 03, 2000.

Dan, allow me to make some suggestions:

If you have a question about the above game or about chess in general, but you're not sure it would be of general interest, feel free to email me and I'll get back to you within a day or so.

If you're looking to start an argument, then I would suggest posting a provocative answer to any of the threads started by "cpr."

-- David L (, July 03, 2000.

I personally have no problem with chess games being posted. I figure I might learn something. So far the only way I've found to consistently win chess games is to (1) point out the window and say, "Look! Batman!" and (2) move some pieces around when my opponent turns away.

Oh, and David... You said, "If you're looking to start an argument, then I would suggest posting a provocative answer to any of the threads started by "cpr."" Counseling a newer (I assume) person to pick a fight with cpr? Tsk, tsk. God's gonna getcha for that... ;)

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), July 03, 2000.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone.And to show you that I too love board games,I will tell you about my latest checkers Game.It went like this.He jumped one of my men.Ijumped one of his.He jumped one of mine.Hold yourself now don't get too excited.Then I jumped another one of his.Can you stand the suspence? Isn't this too exciting for words?.Can you feel the tension?He jumped yet another of mine.I fought back desperatly.I jumped another of his men.This went on for some time.This capturing of each others pieces.In the end I don't remember who won the game.Does it really matter?..My point is.Who gives a crap one way or another? Describing a chessgame is only slightly more thrillig then watching Enamel dry.

-- Dan Newsome (, July 03, 2000.

Sounds very similar to the last checker game I had with my girlfriend. First I jumped her. Then she jumped me. Then I jumped her. Then she jumped me. Then we settled down and played checkers.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), July 03, 2000.

Dan, I'm glad your intentions are peaceful. This was hard to discern from the tone of your answers.

To appreciate the beauty of a well played game of chess requires a considerable amount of study, which I've found to be the case with most pursuits. I can understand this beauty being difficult to imagine for someone who has not spent a lot of time at chess, but to suggest (as you have) that enthusiasts are wasting their time cannot help but provoke a deservedly hostile response.

-- David L (, July 03, 2000.

Dave;Chess is just a game.So is horseshoes and the sacred game of Poker.There is draw poker,stud poker,and lowball Poker.My favorite is strip Poker.The loser has to play a game of chess.And then tell the world about it.They will have to relate each and every move is tedious detail.Omit nothing, tell each move and why you chose to move that particular man.And they have to do this hopefully in a million words or less.I think this forum should lighten up a little.I don't take myself seriously.And you should'nt either.

-- Dan Newsome (, July 03, 2000.

Dan, it is probably hard for you to imagine but nonetheless true, that chess enthusiasts derive great pleasure from going over a game in minute detail, preferably without impertainent comment from those who don't happen to share their enthusiasm.

-- David L (, July 04, 2000.

Dave.Huh oh Dave, this time you have gone too far.Saying that I am impertainent.I am hurt, cut to the quick.You wound me Sir! I have ever been called impertainent in my life.I have been called a smartass more the a few times.Which I readily admit too.I am starting to worry about your addiction to the game.If you can't play a game within a certain length of time,do you do into withdrawal pains? Do you sweat and shake with ague.Can you barely hold your Brandy snifter? Do you toss and turn in restless sleep?Is the chess game coming back to haunt you?The one where you lost your Queen on the 5th move.Did you castle to no avail? Was your each move a defensive one?Did you scurry from side to side of the board with your only surviving Biship and pawn,relentlessly pursued by the white knight and men at arms? I relate to you.Yes I, Boonstar1, can feel your pain!!".No,not really.If truth be known,I would be a member of the angry mob on the street out side your gated Manor,holding torches aloft and brandishing farm implements demanding more Bread.And Beer.Yeah thats it! More Bread AND Beer.You should not get your bowels in an uproar over small things.Nothing personal.I only mention this en pas-sant.Now deal the damn cards.

-- Dan Newsome (, July 04, 2000.

Some thoughts on the game's key phases and turning points.

Black played the opening aggressively, letting his development lag in order to exert pressure on White's pawns. Eventually, this pressure resulted in some positional concessions by White, such as White's King Knight going to K2 instead of KB3. (The pawn structure gives White a strong square at K5, hence her knights ideally belong on Q2 and KB3.)

Black began to gain the initiative after 10) B-K3. 10) Q-K3 would have been stronger, to maneuver the queen to the kingside where White had a territorial advantage. To diminish White's kingside potential, Black traded White's light square bishop, following it up by the trade of his own light square bishop (which might have become hemmed in by his own pawns). Finally, Black offered to trade queens, the acceptance of which all but eliminated White's kingside possibilities.

19) R-K2 was excellent, intending (I presume) to retreat the knight and play P-QB3 to solidify. Black could have prepared the advance of his QRP and QNP, looking to trade them for their White counterparts (a strategy known as the "minority attack"), but I didn't think this would win, as White's putting her king at Q3 would help hold everything together. Hence I decided upon 19) ...BxP, which might not be theoretically superior to the minority attack idea, but seemed more difficult for White to parry.

The resulting ending was to Black's advantage, with his two pawn islands (to White's three) and his potentially more useful minor piece (which might someday be planted at QB5). However, White's active rook offset this to some extent.

When Eve sent 29) P-B4, I had thought it a serious error as it allowed Black's knight to take root at K5. (I had expected White to double rooks on the QN file in conjunction with P-QR4 and the posting of the bishop at QR3, even at the cost of losing the QRP. I thought that this would have given White sufficient counterplay.)

But in playing 31) ...P-K4, I had underestimated the strength of 32) R-N4. Suddenly, Black's iron clamp on the QB5 and K5 squares was turning to mush, and White's P-QB4 had to be taken seriously. At that point, Black had to play carefully to avoid disadvantage.

However, soon after that, White began to miss clearer chances to draw. The gain of a pawn by 36) BPxP was more than offset by the weakness of White's queenside pawns and the immobility of her bishop. 36) QPxP PxP+ 37) K-B2 would have liberated White's bishop and drawn with less trouble.

The losing move might have been 46) R-R6+, allowing Black's king to back up and threaten to inch over to the kingside to defend his NP. If White had played 46) R-R7, Black could have made progress only by giving up his NP for White's remaining pawns, and there are many drawn positions with king + rook + BP + RP against king + rook.

-- David L (, July 04, 2000.

Hi Dave,

A few thoughts on your comments for now

I think your suggestion of 10) Q-K3 ties the Queen up to the defense of the QP, which IMO, appears to offset a kingside advantage. But, if youre referring to a timely sacrifice of the QP for a kingside assault, then I might agree with you; its certainly interesting to contemplate.

My 19) R-K2 was played for the reasons you indicated. That was another difficult move for me to find.

Regarding My 29) P-B4: What I saw was your playing R(1)-B3, followed by N-N3 and N-R5, exerting tremendous pressure on my queenside, so I felt I had to go for a break. But when I played 29) P-B4, I had overlooked your 31...P-K4, and I think finding 32. R-N4 was the most difficult point in the game for me. Btw, through 29) P- B4 I was actually provoking your knight to K5! This is because I thought it was a superficial placement, and that I would be better off with your knight on K-5 than on the queenside.

More later...

-- eve (, July 08, 2000.

Hi Eve,

10) Q-K3 is a lot more aggressive than it looks. Here's what could have happened on inferior but plausible Black defense: 10) Q-K3 N-QN5 11) B-KN5 NxB 12) BxN PxB 13) NxP and White seems to be winning, e.g., 13) ...Q-Q3 14) NxP+ K-K2 15) N-K4 and only then does White recapture the knight. Instead of 12) ...PxB, I would have replied 12) ...N-QN5, when the threats of 13) ...NxBP and 13) ...PxB win material.

The above does not render 10) Q-K3 or 11) B-KN5 unsound. 12) PxN would renew the threat of 13) BxN and 14) NxP, so that 12) ...B-K2 seems best. Then 13) BxN PxB [13) ...BxB 14) NxP] leads to a very unbalanced position where I prefer Black due to his two bishops and control of the center, but his broken kingside pawns may give White some counterplay in the middle game. The alternative of 12) QxN would keep White's pawns intact, but Black could reply 12) ...B-K2 to keep his own intact as well.

I don't see the merit of 10) Q-K3 as being diminished by the support it lends to the QP. 10) B-K3 withdrew the bishop from a fine diagonal while further restricting the mobility of White's queen and obstructing White's only open file,

Black's plan of maneuvering his knight to QR5 might have boomeranged after 29) R-K1 R(1)-B3 30) R-QN1 N-N3 31) B-R1 N-R5 32) R-R7, when 32) ...NxP loses a piece to 33) R-N8+ R-B1 34) RxR+ RxR 35) BxN. Black should try to trade at least one of White's rooks before they can get fiendishly active. One method, 29) ...R(5)-B3 [to challenge the knight file by 30) ...R-N3] might have led to 30) R-QN1 R-N3 31) B-B1 RxR(8) 32) RxR R-N1 33) RxR NxR 34) P-QB4, when White's active king gives her enough play to draw.

I just noticed a fascinating alternative to the game's 31) ...P-K4: 31) ...PxP 32) PxP R(5)-B2 33) RxR RxR, so as to meet 34) P-B4 by 34) ...PxP+ [35) KxN R-K2+ wins]. Better is 33) R-N6 R-K2 34) R-KN1 [not 34) RxQRP N-B4+] when White's active rooks keep the draw in hand. So 29) P-B4 seems to have been a remarkably good move.

After the game's 33) RPxR, Black refrained from 33) ...N-B7+ due to 34) K-K2 NxP 35) P-R3 N-B3 36) PxP, and several of Black's pawns may be difficult to defend.

Going back to the opening, I thought White should have played 15) NxB rather than 15) KR-K1, for a knight at Q3 can hop directly to the fine square K5, whereas the short term prospects of a knight at QB3 are limited.

-- David L (, July 09, 2000.

Hi Dave,

Im apologize for my delay in responding. Personal issues took me offline longer than I'd planned. Since this is my third response today, this is my third apology.

So, I'm sorry if I seem overly apologetic.

Your analysis of our second game was really good; almost airtight. For now, I just have a couple of comments on your suggestions.

With respect to your 31)...PxP, you had 32) PxP R(5)-B2; 33)RxR RxR, so as to meet 34) P-B4 by 34) ... PxP+. I think that 34) R- K2, preparing 35) P-B4 would be pretty good for white, though.

Regarding your next comment in this line that "Better is 33) R-N6 R- K2 34) R-KN1..." I think an interesting try would be 34) P-QR4 followed by 35) B-R3.

I really haven't looked at these too deeply, but I'd like your opinion.

-- eve (, July 19, 2000.

Hi eve,
I wonder if Steven Wright has said, "If you're going to apologize for apologizing, then why apologize." 8^)

After 31) ...PxP 32) PxP R(5)-B2 33) RxR RxR 34) R-K2, Black might break the pin by 34) ...K-Q1, and now 35) P-B4 would result in devalued White pawns after 35) ...N-Q3 36) PxP NxP. If White refrains from 35) P-B4, Black might play ...P-B3 to fix the KBP and enable lateral protection of his NP. White still might be able to draw after 34) R-K2, but exchanging her active rook a move earlier complicates the task.

33) R-N6 R-K2 34) P-QR4 [ instead of my suggested 34) R-KN1 ] allows 34) ...N-B4+ 35) K-Q2 [ 35) PxN RxR does not seem to give White adequate compensation for the exchange ] 35) ...RxR 36) KxR NxP and White's QBP will also fall.

-- David L (, July 24, 2000.

Eve and Dave,

Some comments/questions on your game 2.

I was wondering how black managed to hassle the QNP so quickly and finally realized that 3) P-QB3 feels more natural to me than 3) P-K3. Then Q-N3, before or after a pawn trade can be answered with Q-B1 or Q-B2 since white has time for P-K3 due to blacks loose bishop.

A key position that you two leave undiscussed is after 5) N-QB3. As black, having said A, I would then say B, by which I mean 5) ... QxQNP. A continuation might be 6) N-N5 N-R3 7) N-KB3 Q-N5+ 8) B- Q2 Q-R5 9) N-K5 P-Q3 10) N-B4 (threatens N-N2) B-B4.

Eve, did you feel pressured into offering this pawn or were you putting it out as bait? Dave, you already said you wanted to use pressure on whites pawns to gain some positional concession. Did you have a line you feared that kept you from grabbing the pawn? I can see why you might leave it alone on general principles.

Regarding the possible R vs R+2P ending. Looking in Volume 1 of Cherons four volume Lehr- und Handbuch der Endspiele, the closest I see is Keres-Sokolski (Moskau 1947) black to move with White: K on KN3, P on KR3 and KB3, R on KN4 and Black: K on his KB4, R on his KR1. Keres won, but Botvinnik thinks it could have been a draw. Levenfish and Smyslovs book on rook endings has the same analysis as Cheron. Of course there may be some other analysis less than 50 years old, perhaps an exhaustive search by a computer program.


-- dandelion (golden@pleurisy.plant), July 28, 2000.

Mornin' dandelion,

Thanks for your interest in our games.

3) P-QB3 that early looked to me to be somewhat on the passive side, and just a bit of a premature commitment, although many times in this opening Ill end up playing it anyway, as it contributes to a stonewall setup that I like to use. But I do like to keep my option of playing an early P to QB4 open (P-QB3 in that event being a waste of time), and I think using it here with the idea of a Q move to the QB file to protect the QNP would end up making the Q vulnerable to a black R on the same file. In any case, I think the Q would be passively placed here.

Blacks Q going for the QNP in the positions played leads to all sorts of fascinating complications, IMO all favorable to white, depending on when he takes it.

You asked whether I felt pressured into offering this pawn or was I putting it out as bait. Well, it was actually both! I didnt see any good way of defending the pawn, but also saw the pawn sacrifice as a very interesting, natural try.

You wondered what I had in mind after 5) N-QB3, QxQNP. I probably would have played 6) N-N5 (as you noted), and assuming 6)N-R3, I would most likely have continued: 7) R-N1, QxRP; 8) P-QB4 (with the threat of R-R1; it also prevents a black N from occupying Q4), and if 8)Q-R5+; then 9) B-Q2, Q-Q1; 10) N-KB3, with a very strong position and lead in development for the two pawns. I really think white is better here; maybe much better.

Hi Dave,

Your analyses of my suggestions were very good; thanks.

-- eve (, July 30, 2000.

In refraining from 5) ...QxNP, I had taken into account lines similar to the one eve mentions. An example: 5) ...QxNP 6) N-N5 N-R3 7) R-N1 QxRP 8) R-R1 Q-K3+ 9) B-K5, and now 9) ...P-Q3 can be met by 10) RxN and Black has no time to capture anything due to the threatened 11) N-B7+. 10) ...N-Q4 11) B-B4 keeps the pressure on. Black might have an improvement along the way, but it seemed imprudent to allow White so much play.

White had an interesting possibility on Move 10: 10) N-R4 Q-R2 11) B-B7 [ threatening 12) N-N6 ] 11) ...P-QN4 12) N-N6 QxB 13) NxR Q-R2 14) P-QR4 P-N5 [ to keep the position closed until Black can catch up in development ] 15) BxP QxN [ 15) ...QxB 16) N-B7+ ] and I judged Black's bishop and knight as slightly more valuable than White's rook and pawn, though it's close.

I think 2) B-B4 was premature. Since the pawn structure was still largely undefined, it wasn't yet clear where that bishop belonged.

-- David L (, July 30, 2000.

Eve and Dave,

Thank you both for your responses.

I had not been considering the second pawn sacrifice 5) ... QxNP 6) N-N5 N-R3 7) R-QN1 QxRP.

Dave, in your line 8) R-R1 Q-K3+ 9) B-K5 the reply 9) ... Q-N3 holds the material, at least in the short run. But the next comment for Eve applies to your line too.

Eve, in your line white sure has a lot of space and development. The eventual crisis seems too far off to get at by making up lines. As for taking the pawn later, I think blacks first chance to take the QNP was his best.

Do you have any comments on the next pawn offer? After 6) B-Q3 QxQP what happens? I realize Dave could just reject the capture on general principles, but to make the offer, you (Eve) had to do some calculating.


-- dandelion (golden@pleurisy.plant), July 31, 2000.

dandelion, You wondered what I might have had in mind on the next pawn offer (i.e., my QP, at move 6).

After 6) B-Q3, QxQP I would have played 7) Q-B3, and if 7)...B-N5, for example, then 8) N-K2, BxN+; 9) NxB, followed by 10) 0-0-0 and black has to move his queen yet again, while white has a terrific lead in development, spatial advantage, and a probable kingside initiative for just one pawn. I'll take that line (for white) any day.

Dave, your analyses in your prior post were interesting; I couldn't readily see improvements for either side.

Regarding 2) B-B4 -- yes, it may be premature, but, as far as I know, it hasn't been played much and there's almost nothing on it in the books I've seen. So, it forces my opponent "out of the book" very early on. And, since I know relatively little about the openings, and don't like to play based on opening memorization in any case, it's good for me in that respect as well. The bottom line is that it puts both players "on their own" very quickly, and in this way is a lot more fun for me.

One downside to my preference for natural, non-book-type play is that I wasn't at all aware of the two-pawn-down ending that might have been a draw.

-- eve (, August 01, 2000.

In the variation, 5) ... QxNP 6) N-N5 N-R3 7) R-QN1 QxRP 8) R-R1 Q-K3+ 9) B-K5 Q-N3, the immediate 10) RxN PxR 11) N-B7+ K-Q1 12) NxR Q-B3 13) Q-B3 seems to fail to 13) ...QxP, threatening ...Q-N8+ and ...B-N2. My sense is that the dislocation of Black's king would not quite compensate White for her material deficit. 13) ...QxQ 14) NxQ P-Q3 might also work, although 15) N-N5 poses some problems.

But 10) Q-B3 [ instead of 10) RxN ] would threaten 11) RxN PxR 12) QxR, with Black's bishop then hanging. After 10) ...Q-B3 [ to block the key diagonal ], one possible continuation is 11) RxN PxR [ 11) ...QxQ transposes into the last line in the previous paragraph ] 12) N-B7+ K-Q1 13) QxQ PxQ 14) NxR N-K1 [ to prevent N-B7 ] 15) N-B3 P-B3 [ 15) ...B-N2 allows 16) N-N5 ] 16) B-N8 B-N2 17) BxP BxN 18) BxP, which seems balanced.

Perhaps 5) ...QxNP was playable, but I felt White's attacking chances would fully compensate for the pawn.

After 6) ...P-QR3 [ preventing N-N5 ], I might have actually been threatening to take the NP, e.g., 7) N-B3 QxNP and Black seems okay:

A. 8) N-QR4 Q-N5+ 9) P-B3 Q-R4.
B. 8) B-Q2 Q-R6 [ to stop 9) N-QR4 and 10) N-N6 ].
C. 8) N-K4 NxN 9) BxN P-Q4.

Hence White felt obliged to play the positionally less desirable 7) KN-K2 to avoid later "wasting" a move to protect her queen's knight.

eve, I agree that 2) B-B4, though not theoretically strongest, is a reasonable way to get out of most opponents' "books." I'd say that my tournament record in off-beat opening lines (even, maybe especially against grandmasters) is much better than in the heavily analyzed lines. Like yourself, I prefer for both my opponent and myself to be on our own early. So I guess great minds think alike. 8^)

-- David L (, August 01, 2000.

Dave and dandelion,

This is just to let you know that I'll be offline for pretty much the rest of the week, but I hope to get back into the swing of things after that. 'Till then, happy analysizing! (remember...y'all saw this term here first.):)

Oh, geez...NOW I see that I coulda replaced "just" with "chess"; now THAT would have been really cute. Alas, another lost opportunity...

-- eve (, August 02, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ